Previous September 2002

More September 2002

Nietzsche, Power, and Buffy (Spoilers through 7.1) -- Jon, 17:16:02 09/27/02 Fri

Okay, being the slow reader that I am, I want to apologize in advance if this has already been brought up in one of the many Lessons threads that I haven't managed to get through. But, if it hasn't been said...

At the end of Lessons, Spike's vision of The Master/Buffy (or was that the "first evil"?) says something to the effect of "It's not about right or wrong - it's about power." Did this strike anyone else as a rather blunt reference to Nietzsche's "Beyond Good & Evil" spiel? Nietzsche's philosophical outlook, if I may be allowed to murder it, is posited on the concept of the Will to Power - the ravenous will of life to overcome itself, to devour itself, to attain ever greater heights, blah blah blah. It is not good or evil - in fact binaries like good/evil, good/bad, & right/wrong (ethically speaking) are figured as modes and manifestations of power - not truths in and of themselves (which pretty much don't exist in the Nietzschean worldview). The Will to Power is beyond, before & beneath concepts of good and evil.

I'm sure many people on this board have a better handle on Nietzsche than I do, so I won't try to go much further than that in explaining him. I was struck, however, by how Willow's business about the interconnectedness of everything - the way everything shares the same root structure - reflects Nietzsche's visual figure for the Will to Power: a tree whose roots must dig deep into "evil" in order to gather the sustenance for the branches to spread ever higher and broader in the "good" above. That way of understanding how power develops has been a central theme for both Buffy and Willow since at least the end of season 4 (I'm thinking of Buffy's deep dark slayer roots as well as the expansion of power Willow has experienced as a result of becoming evil). Further, Willow's observation that the earth isn't all good - that it has teeth - reflects Nietzsche's image of the life force devouring itself.

Getting even loopier, Nietzsche wedded his Will to Power to the concept of Eternal Recurrence. According to the idea of Eternal Recurrence, we are bound to re-experience every experience in our life over and over again for all eternity. All we can learn to do is to say, from the bottom of our life-affirming hearts, YES to it all. I've never read a satisfactory explanation as to why these concepts are necessarily wedded, but that's what he said. I bring it up here because season 7 presents us with a return to the beginning both in terms of the themes and set-up of the show (back to school, back to cool) and - according to Spike's vision of the Master - in terms of the big bad: "the beginning...before the bang, before the word."

At the end of season 5, Buffy had a moment of illumination that made her capable of saying a hearty YES to her fate and her suffering. Faced in season 6 with the prospect of doing it again, however, she slipped into deep despair. Is it possible that season 7 is going to confront of us (and our dear scoobies) with the realization that good and evil as we know them in the Buffyverse have a single, shared root - in power? A single power that divided against itself back before the bang, before the word, in order to overcome itself and feed on itself and expand? That the first slayer and the first evil are one? And will Buffy be called upon to say one big walloping YES to her fate, her suffering, her evil, her good, and most importantly her power?

Jon

[> Re: Nietzsche, Power, and Buffy (Spoilers through 7.1) -- David Frisby, 17:33:57 09/27/02 Fri

Your thoughts are in no way loopy. Nietzsche's thought has been the guiding star for humanity for over a century now, and it seems to me it can be seen most everywhere, if one looks in a Nietzschean way, so to speak. Will to power is Nietzsche's dark explanation of the love of wisdom (or philosophy), and just as Plato's philosophy centered on the wisdom of love, so Nietzsche's does on the power to will. Sound like loopy games? So be it. I still think it's true. Have you read the article "Buffy and the Will to Power" which appeared online when she and Spike completed each other? Besides philosophy, Nietzsche also uses his word of will to power to explain the basis of biology (or life), physics (or the world), and psychology (or the soul). Regarding eternal recurrence (evige wiederkunft), Nietzsche also refers to eternal return (evige widerkehr), and their relation to amor fati (not to mention the "innocence of becoming") is quite important (especially with regard to priority). And Nietzsche's ubermensch? Well in the penultimate episode of season four we are introduced to the uber-buffy (and I've been waiting for her return ever since). Of course (sorry to speak so condescendingly but but but) Nietzsche's philosophy comes to a peak with the marriage of Dionysos and Ariadne (or the ubermensch and earth, or Zarathustra and life, or the complementary man and existence, or the sovereign individual and fate), and whether Buffy and Spike (or whatever his name will become, he the second vampire with a soul) will find redemption from revenge through love and song (while achieving a victory over the spirit of gravity, or the old master of the world, through laughter and dance), remains to be seen (but I'll keep waiting and do have faith in Josh and his own scoobies or whatever term of endearment is appropriate). After listening to he and his wife sing that song from "once more with feeling" (final track of the new cd) I've found myself really wondering just how much they are really a team in that great creative good we all call buffy. Sorry for the ramble. To close, it seems obvious to me that the thought of Nietzsche can be uncovered or enucleated from the buffy series -- but is Josh an atheist because of Nietzsche's word that God is dead?

[> [> I knew I'd find a Nietzsche scholar here... -- Jon, 19:25:24 09/27/02 Fri

Can you tell me where to find this Buffy and the Will to Power article? I don't believe I have read it. Is it good?

I guess the question I was circling around is this: will Joss & Co. use season 7 to finally deconstruct the Buffyverse's own concepts of good and evil? Certainly the gesture has been there all along (the thing that keeps me watching is not the victory of good over evil but the moral and emotional uncertainties that the characters find themselves in). I've wondered for a long time how an outspoken atheist like JW can keep spooling out the good v. evil struggle - over which the Christian tradition inevitably dangles (at least it does for a typicaly agnostic preacher's kid like me).

Talk about giving the viewer what they need, not what they want. If Season 7 ends up being the last season, wouldn't it be appropriate for it to end with the collapse of the very binary oppositions from which the Buffyverse was constructed? I mean: no more easy satisfaction derived from the good fight won by the good guys.

Ah heck, I don't know what I'm driving at.

[> [> [> There is simply power -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:54:29 09/27/02 Fri

I've posted this twice before, but:

The last line of the shapeshifter's parallels a line from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone:

"There is no good and no evil. There is simply power."

Either both writers absorbed Nietzche's ideas, or Joss has read Harry Potter. The 2nd is more likely, actually.

[> [> [> [> Re: There is simply power -- David Frisby, 21:18:45 09/27/02 Fri

The thought can be directly found in Plato's _Sophist_ and power is then explained as all that can affect or be affected (meaning anything and everything). Machiavelli of course also knew this but advised against actually telling anyone they believe it to be true. Nietzsche finally was honest and said there is only power but no greater power than good and evil (Z 1.15). And finally, when we move from the literary and legal to the truly dramatic (life) and the truly musical (love) we learn this all is nothing new at all but the oldest of the old, first of all, the beginning. (By the way, when Homer's Paris chose beauty instead of wisdom or power, did he start something new?)

Once more with feeling, good night.

David

[> [> [> [> Re: There is simply power -- Wisewoman, 17:42:35 09/28/02 Sat

I don't agree that Joss is more likely to have read Harry Potter than he is to have read Nietzsche, and I wonder what led you to that conclusion?

Or did you mean that you suspect J.K. Rowling hasn't read Nietzsche?

Inquiring minds want to know!

;o) dub

[> [> [> [> [> Re: There is simply power -- auroramama, 18:38:30 09/28/02 Sat

Nietzsche's thought has been guiding humanity for over a century now? (The women's movement was all about Nietzsche? Environmentalism? The Internet?) "Buffy Summers' Will to Power" was about the loss of a dichotomy between good and evil? (When I read it, I thought it was about female sexual equality.) Joss is more likely to have read Rowling than Nietzsche? (Well, everyone's read Rowling by now, if only to keep up with their kids. But I vote he's read Diana Wynne Jones over either, as it happens.) Huh?

Ah, well. That's what makes it a fandom.

auroramama

[> [> [> [> [> [> A big yes to Diana Wynne Jones -- Rahael, 05:20:21 09/29/02 Sun

Don't know if Joss has read her, but certainly more enjoyable than JKR!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There is simply power (Nietzsche's influence) -- David Frisby, 09:11:40 09/29/02 Sun

Sounds nuts huh? Maybe it's not true, even though both world wars sure turned significantly on what to make of Nietzsche. He said of himself that the 20th and 21st centuries would grapple with him (especially with regard to the diagnosis of nihilism and his cure). I know it may sound unbelievable (and of course may be false) but its not solitary voice. The literature generally points to Nietzsche as influencing the world more than any other philosopher since Plato. The way I think of it, all of postmodernism is but a footnote to Nietzsche. As for the women's movement, Yes! -- and I refer you to _Conversations with Niezsche_ a book put together a few years ago that shows how Nietzsche's friendships with key women in Europe did in fact contribute significantly (it didn't just happen in America in the 60s). In _Beyond_ he points to the extreme danger (women becoming simply equal and taking jobs as clerks) and the saving power (the complementarity of gender, its utter importance from the most mundane to the highest (great god and godess generating world). Know about Frau Lou and Nietzsche? And also Yes! as to Nietzsche and the earth (not a romantic idealism but a definite point in a healthy direction, his (again) "now that God is dead the earth is our most important concern". You're right about the internet though -- that owes most to those two gay philosophers Turing and Wittgenstein (I read recently) and at bottom stems from the Baconian world which Nietzsche still consumates (is "Yes!" to the modern). Who is Diane Wynne Jones and what has she written about? I'd love to hear. Oh, and please pardon the obsession or perhaps even stupidity with regard to my views on Nietzsche -- after three decades of study I'm sure I sound in left field or whatever, but I am honestly sharing thoughts for what its worth. Oh, and did I say Buffy is the best thing of its sort ever on TV (in my perhaps 'nutty' opinion). Oh, and I think you might have been right on that article too about Buffy and the will to power. I didn't mean to make of it what I did, only to refer to the timeliness of the topic. Wasn't it good though? I love that line "When did the house fall down?"
David

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There is simply power (Nietzsche's influence) -- auroramama, 20:00:02 09/29/02 Sun

All these connections are fascinating. I have to take your word for it, because all I know about Nietzsche are a set of cliche's. From what you write, he said a great many things, some of them seemingly contradictory, some of them inspiring in ways he might or might not have imagined. I still think he might be a tough sell to us Jewish feminists, though.

Anyway, I know a woman (not me!) I'd back against Nietzsche any time. "The abyss blinked first."

It was a luscious article. I sent the author a fan letter for it.

auroramama

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There is simply power (Nietzsche's influence) -- David Frisby, 05:14:46 09/30/02 Mon

If there is any specific connection most fascinating let me know and I'll supply some pertient citations so you take a look yourself. I'm not lying but I could be wrong -- so don't take my word for it (of course). As for Jewish feminists, have you read what Hannah Arendt (a leading 20th century Jewish feminist, of sorts) says about Nietzsche? A lot. See the chapter in her _Life of the Mind_. I don't get your quote "Abyss blinked first" (and which article isluscious?). Thanks though, glad you found the connections interesting.
David

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> If I only had a long enough stick and a good fulcrum point -- fresne, 14:04:18 09/30/02 Mon

I can't say that I really have anything concrete to add to a discussion of Nietzche, other than to say, I bow to the board mind.

That done, I have some of my usual meanderings.

Oh, but first, Dianna Wynne Jones is a fantasy (has she done any sci fi?) author of no small sense of humor. One of my favorites being The Magician Howl's Moving Castle. Short description containing the same spoilers as on the back of the book - the eldest of three daughters, and therefore by story logic doomed to failure, gets turned into an old woman. She finds this incredibly liberating, since she can now do and say whatever she wants. Also, having already fairly spectacularly "failed", she can get on with her life. Magic and a John Donne poem ensues. The Dark Lord of Derkholm (what if the evil overlord were a mild mannered absent minded sort of fellow with oodles of children. Natural and created.) is also quite good.

Speaking of writers, I was briefly reminded of a sequence of events in one of the Liaden series by Sharon Lee and Steve Miller. One characters is trying to teach a boy martial arts, starting with the metaphor of power as the sea. Fluid and inexorable. However, the boy just can't seem to grasp the basic concept, because for him power isn't like the sea. Eventually, another character suggests that he think of power like a great tree. Solid, strong, its roots deep in the earth, its branches reaching into the sky. Since he perceives power to be a solid thing, he is then able to carry out the basic martial arts move. The ultimate point is that power is both the tree and the sea. It's just that different people approach power differently.

That said, I'm quite curious to see what ME means by power.

Also, as stated elsewhere in the thread, power isn't just about action, it's about context and relationships. The fight sequences in this episode beautifully play with this concept.

The very first scene. That young woman is done in by gravity as much as she is done in by the hooded figures.

Also, however much power or force Dawn puts into her stake is irrelevant unless she strikes the vampire in the correct spot. Conversely, she does quite well early in the fight because she understands how to use the vampire's strength against him. He is faster, stronger, but he hasn't yet learned all those fancy moves that they all seem to learn eventually. Dawn is able to use his own heedless forward motion against him.

We also see, or rather hear about, Anya not applying her power. Rather than the Crimean battleground, where various nationalisms flexed their muscles, we have a man turned into a frog - the French kind.

In this episode, we see Buffy use a variety of weapons. She moves beyond her usual stake and in the first few minutes picks up a sword to decapitate a vampire. Not that we haven't seen her use a sword before. Heck in the first episode, she used a cymbal to do much the same thing. It is however, rare and there is a certain economy to the action. Lesson done now. Time to kill the vampire so we can move on.

Later in the episode, Dawn assembles a weapon from bricks and a bag. By themselves and without some skill, they are of limited use. However, in Buffy's hands, it's all about applying force to the right spot.

Then there is the ultimate weapon. The cell phone. Or rather the point of the cell phone, communication. Buffy talks to Dawn, Xander, Spike. Information is exchanged and force is applied to the weakest point, the talisman. A little bit of wood and magic which causes the dead to walk and talk. Almost the opposite of Mr. Pointy and his ilk.

Per the discussion in another thread, I'll be curious to see if, in the next episode, Buffy tells Dawn and Xander about Spike. Or will this once again this will be an example of non-communication that like the dropped brick, inevitably finds a foot to fall upon.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If I only had a long enough stick and a good fulcrum point -- David Frisby, 15:40:02 09/30/02 Mon

Images of the tree and the sea abound in Nietzsche's _Zarathustra_ too, especially the tree in 1.7 (I think) where Zarathustra teaches the young man he is like a tree striving with his will to power to reach the sun or the food but also with deep dark roots that are likened to evil. The young man learns that his potential for good depend on the extent of his evil (his roots). Without evil we are toppled by storms of confusion and complexity. Zarathustra's voyage across the sea (3.2-4) opens the door to his new infinity, and the dimension opened between the sea, the horizon, and the sky is a deep mystery.

I think Buffy has not learnt her lesson and will not tell Dawn and Xander about Spike -- not yet. And I assume she acts without conscious understanding in this regard.

Some interesting comments on power and weapons!And thanks for the info on DW Jones. Last, I like to think of martial arts moves as metaphors for metaphysical motions (striking at the heart or the center as an argument that undercuts the prime assumption, for example).

David

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If I only had a long enough stick and a good fulcrum point -- auroramama, 20:28:29 09/30/02 Mon

=Howl's Moving Castle= is one of my favorites. I love DWJ but she doesn't always do justice, IMHO, to her female characters; Sophie is an exception, even if she had to be turned into a crone to snap out of her funk. =Dark Lord of Derkholm= and the sequel are lovely, though for sheer snarky bite you can't beat the nonfictional =Tough Guide to Fantasyland=.

I'm awed, as usual, by the extended metaphor (give me a long enough metaphor and a scene to stand on...)

But I'm all, "Please, please, please can we not do the not-telling thing again?" Buffy's sane enough now that she shouldn't be casually forgetting that lesson. It's too much like the way Xander kept forgetting that he'd saved Buffy's life way back in first season. Ooo, I'm so useless, all I can do is bring donuts! How many times do you have to save the people who save the world before you get a little self-esteem?

David, my friend likes Arendt too, but I've never been able to get far with the book she sent me.

auroramama

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If I only had a long enough stick and a good fulcrum point -- David Frisby, 14:49:58 10/01/02 Tue

Auroramama
You might give Hannah another try. Ever hear of the 20th century philosopher Martin Heidegger? The two of them had a very interesting affair. Ever hear of the 20th century political philsopher Leo Strauss? He proposed to her but was turned down. All three of course heavily studied Nietzsche Her _Life of the Mind_ might be the best place to look. A friend of mine is offering a seminar on Arendt this semester. She is perhaps one of the most important women (non-fiction) writers of the century.

I think in tonight's episode we learn more about buffy not having learned her lesson regarding the hiding of things related to spike.

I assume you do watch 7.2 tonight! For me its the big event of the week.

David

[> [> [> [> [> What I know about these things ain't that great. -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:52:35 09/28/02 Sat

Well, maybe Nietzsche is more widely read than I know. It's just, you guys tend to bring up philosopher types I've never heard of, so it's sometimes hard to tell what is obscure and what's not. That comment was also based on the fact that Joss seems like the kind of guy who would both read and enjoy Harry Potter, is all. I don't know enough about Rowling to know if she read Nietzsche. And, again, I don't know enough about Nietzsche to know whether someone's read him or not.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: There is simply power -- David Frisby, 14:54:17 10/01/02 Tue

Even though Nietzsche hardly sold any books at all before his madness, he has as of today (I read) sold more books than any other philosopher. Everyone reads Nietzsche these days -- for example, Jack Nicholson. And even those that don't are spoonfed his thoughts or commentaries on this thoughts through countless other sorts of modes, especially music. Did you know the most impressive thing about Nietzsche, according to many of his friends, was that he was simply the best at sitting down at the piano and playing spontaneous music off the top of his head. No wonder he was able to help Wagner finish his ring cycle (see Cosima's diaries).

By the way, I've read a lot of your postings in earlier (assuming there's only person that goes by wisewoman) and have been considerably taught!

Thanks.

David

[> [> [> Re: I knew I'd find a Nietzsche scholar here...(how?) -- David Frisby, 21:09:22 09/27/02 Fri

The article is online at:
http://dir.salon.com/sex/feature/2001/11/28/buffy/index.html and is indeed good. It begins quoting that great line from buffy the next morning after she and spike finally find each other: "when did the house fall down?"

I wish I knew what Josh and Co. have in mind but I really don't. I've been going on the assumption for some time now that the whole series will be brought to a great conclusion (unlike most tv serials) and that the key will be the line from the first (season 3): I am that which even the darkness fears. I've assume the final battle will be when the forces of light join with the forces of darkness to defeat evil (the first), and that as a result there will never have been any magic or demons or vampires (which is what Josh gave away when creating the Fray series of comics). But I could be wrong, easily. Josh and Co. have never ceased to amaze me. Buffy is my favorite show and I honestly think the best thing of its sort ever to appear on tv. I love the show. This website (buffy and philosophy) is the best buffy website too.

As regards the final battle at the end of time where good defeats evil, well that's what we've been hearing ever since the historical Zarathustra (known to the Greeks as Zoroaster) appeared as a reformer within the ancient Iranian religion and drove the followers of Dionysos (the wine drinkers) out. Nietzsche's Zarathustra aims to correct the errors of that historical Zarathustra / Zoroaster, time as not linear and the world as not a cosmic battle of good versus evil and no end where good finally triumphs. But, in my opinion (and based on considerable study I should add), Nietzsche understands the present amoral period as temporary to be followed by a new morality. In Nietzsche's language all the old outdated and rejected concepts are reborn and rebaptized anew with meaning, concepts such as faith, the church, the soul, morality, and the creative good (cf. the end of Z 2.12). Part of my interest in Buffy is whether and how her eventual morality might model a future Nietzschean morality (by the way, are you keeping up with the developing Nietzschean mythology in Andromeada?). Power is indeed what it's all about, but nothing is more powerful than wisdom, and (like Plato taught) it is the idea of the good that anchors all wise judgements or acts (for Nietzsche, not just the good but the creative good, one within the context of a love of necessity or fate, based in the love of one's own, which is wrapped in the protective cloak of nobility -- and somewhere in the mix is the creative dance of the star born of chaos, Lord Chance? -- but I wax poetic, forgive me).

Nietzsche is best known for his word in his book _The Gay Science_ that God is dead. But as Leo Strauss argues, Nietzsche then vindicates God in his book _Beyond Good and Evil_. Those who don't understand Nietzsche think he contends that God is refuted but not the devil, but, Strauss secretly shows, for Nietzsche the devil is refuted but no God.

The bottom line here is that in the Nietzschean universe of discourse one never really quites escapes morality, morality rules (usually through law and/or politics) in some manner or other. He shows in his book _Genealogy of Morals_ that the creation of conscience is one of the greatest events in the history of life on earth. As a philosopher (cultural physician) who tweaks or repairs that conscience, he influences thousands of generations of humanity.

And since I'm on a roll, let me say that one of my all time favorite lines from buffy is season four when she says to Riley, for you this is an adventure but for me its a destiny. That made me wonder how Josh and Co could know so much about Nietzsche's book _Birth of Tragegy_ -- or maybe such influences work in other ways.

Buffy says its all about power and as Zarathustra says (1.15) there has never been no greater power on earth than good and evil (meaning a tablet or code of morality). Buffy acts because its wrong (or right) -- as Faith clearly saw. Spike of course sees the pure power aspect (witness the thanksgiving special with the native americans) as the basis of all moral acts (including wars). Buffy has had to learn (and taught Riley here too) much regarding the war of morality, such that in the great battle of the gods and the giants (this comes from Plato) the giants or the exceptional case sometimes is right and the gods wrong, that its very complex (creating chaos and confusion), and that nihilism (whether active or passive) is not the answer.

One aspect of Nietzsche's overall major multiaspect task, was to diagnose the times (nihilism) and to prescribe a treatment in hopes of a cure. Learning to love life and generate joy leads to health. And that's also what Buffy is all about, and what I hope Josh and Co somehow find a way to dramatize this season and with the overall series, this series that I so very much love to muse about.

Good night.

David

[> [> [> [> Great post! & thanks for the link -- Jon, 11:22:02 09/28/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> Nietzsche and the Buffyverse -- Buffyboy, 23:15:00 09/28/02 Sat

Iím just not convinced that BtVS is actually headed in such a Nietzschian direction. The phrase ìItís all about the powerî certainly calls Nietzsche to mind but my guess is thereís very little influence of Nietzsche on Joss and ME and more importantly the conception of power in the Buffyverse isnít all that Nietzschian.

We learned, especially in seasons four and five, that Buffyís power, the power of the Slayer, has a dark side to it and we have also clearly learned in season six that Willowís power, rooted in magic, also has a vary dark side. Both Buffy and Willow have the power to impose their wills on the world and thus other people and weíve found how frightful this power can sometimes be. Obviously the EvilWillow skinning Warren in Villains comes to mind here. Power, in the sense Iím talking about here, always has the potential to do extraordinarily horrible things. Perhaps this is a bit Nietzschian.

Yet there is more to power in the Buffyverse than what Iíve said so far. For the good use of power in the Buffyverse is always tempered. Tempered by love, concern, compassion, respect, call it what you will, for the earth and its inhabitants. These ideas come out of Feminism, Wiccan Culture, Environmentalism and even good old humanism (shorn of its sexism and its over-extended idea of dominating or controlling nature) rather than Nietzsche.

Remember that EvilWillowís transformation back to Willow began when she stole Gilesí Coven magicks and with this she almost immediately felt compassion for the inhabitants of the earth. A compassion which first took the form of pitying those suffering inhabitants and a desire to end their misery through the destruction of the world until at last Xanderís love finally reached her. As you note Buffy always articulates a principled morality and often, in my opinion, rather powerfully. Recall that in the extraordinary episode Who Are You?, Faith in Buffyís body at first makes fun of Buffyís morality by sarcastically saying into the mirror ìBecause it would be wrong!î yet by the end of the episode when see says ìBecause it would be wrong!î to the vampires in the church, sees means it. Here she begins to learn that the power of the Slayer untempered by morality leads to frightful results and ultimately self-destruction. I believe that Nietzsche would find all of this moral terpering of power little more than the latest manifestation of ressentiment, another attempt by the weak to keep the powerful in chains. Indeed, in an earlier episode, Consequences, Faith articulates such a position when confronted by Buffy after she had killed Mayor Wilkins aid.
FAITH
Youíre still not seeing the big picture, B.
Something made us different. Weíre warriors. Weíre built to kill.
BUFFY
To kill demons! But it does not mean that we get to pass
judgement on people like weíre better than everybody else!
FAITH
We are better! ( Buffy looks off) Thatís right, better. People need
us to survive. In the balance, nobodyís going to cry over some
random bystander who got caught in the crossfire.
BUFFY
I am.
FAITH
Well, thatís your loss.
Faith turns her back on Buffy and walks away.
(Quotation from Psyche Transcript, modified)

I understand that Nietzsche believed that the development of conscience (with its distinction between good and evil) was a great historical achievement, but he also believed that this achievement needed to be transcended. I see no reason, though, to believe that the moral conception of power in the Buffyverse is about to be or somehow in need of being transvalued.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Nietzsche and the Buffyverse (Response as to 'Nietzschean') -- David Frisby, 07:44:11 09/29/02 Sun

I won't address your entire response but will note two things with regard to understanding what it means to be 'Nietzschean' (in my opinion of course, so take this with a grain of salt).

You say: "Yet there is more to power in the Buffyverse than what Iíve said so far. For the good use of power in the Buffyverse is always tempered. Tempered by love, concern, compassion, respect, call it what you will, for the earth and its inhabitants. These ideas come out of Feminism, Wiccan Culture, Environmentalism and even good old humanism (shorn of its sexism and its over-extended idea of dominating or controlling nature) rather than Nietzsche." I think there is more to power in the Nietzsche-verse than what you here imply. The will to power "is" the love of life, its reverse side so to speak (compare Schopenhauer's will to live as reverse side of fear of death, with the former focused on sex and the latter on violence). And Nietzsche's most important teaching is voiced by Zarathustra (I paraphrase): now that God is dead the earth is our most important thing. We "are" part of the earth and our task is to learn to love life on earth. That is my "Nietzschean" understanding of will to power, and aspects of it are voiced sometimes by Spike, other times by Faith, and so on, and I like to think (or even pretend given the medium we're working with here) that Buffy is progressing more and more to a mature Nietzschean wisdom about life. All of season six is about her getting the fire back, the passion, the love of life, the will to power.

The other point concerns your final sentence where you imply that Nietzsche contends the historical achievement of conscience must be transcended. That's dead wrong (in my opinion, based on his _Genealogy_) if you mean left behind and not replaced with a more mature form. Everything in the Nietzschean-verse turns on the new conscience (a product of his mysterious thought ususally known as eternal return). Just read _Genealogy 2.2_ which ends "The sovereign individual (another name for _Beyond's_ Complementary Man or _Zarathustra's_ Superman) will call this his conscience. The long list there to which "this" refers to just might change your mind and maybe world.

No inappropriate contention intended here -- just an exchange of views. In summary, the will to power (I think) is in harmony with life on earth, and humanity's new conscience (especially with regard to the future of science) will change everything (contingent as it is upon amor fati).

David

[> [> [> [> [> [> I completely agree -- Simone, 23:58:10 09/29/02 Sun

Great points. If I may reiterate something (although I probably shouldn't, since it's almost 3 AM here and I'll probably end up babbling incoherently), I think the important thing to remember is that, for Nietzsche, the rejection/overcoming of accepted notions of right and wrong is not about the freedom to unleash your id and be amoral or evil. It's about the freedom to discover yourself and choose your own morality, which is the only way to *authentically* live and be a moral person. Otherwise, you are (at best!) merely wallowing in self-deception, complacency and conformism. Quoting Zarathustra again:

"'This is MY way; where is yours?' - thus I answered those who asked me "the way." For THE way - that does not exist."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I completely agree -- David Frisby, 05:20:51 09/30/02 Mon

I also agree. But, Nietzsche's rhetoric is easily exploited. He does counsel one to call forth one's devil as perhaps the strongest part of one's soul, and he does speaking of raising one's seven demons but only to then transform them into a god. He uses theological imagery easily and to great effect, but as you write, his teaching works primarily on the psychological and to a degree political levels. Parenthetically, I love that old line, where there's a will there's a way, and man has his will but woman has her way (nothing sexist intended here and I apologize in advance for any offense). Nietzsche's idea of the complementarity of the sexes may possibly offend some feminists but he's sure a long way from any patriarchial domination.
David

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you, David! -- Thomas the Skeptic, 13:42:17 10/01/02 Tue

David, I have been an on again-off again follower of Nietzsche for the last ten years, sometimes embracing him in joy, sometimes pushing him away in frustration (or possibly fear about what he might mean for the future of our species). You have done a wonderful job of encapsulating his views and showing the rich complexity of his thought and personality! This entire thread is the reason I love this board!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank you, David! (You're Welcome Thomas!) -- David Frisby, 15:49:53 10/01/02 Tue

You're welcome. Thank you for the kind words. I was a closet-Nietzschean myself for about a dozen years. Introduced to his thought when I was 21 back in 1973 I for years after that considered him simply as a teacher of evil (which I still couldn't get enough of for many years) -- as opposed to whom I studied in daylight, Plato. I was under the spell of Heidegger with regard to Nietzsche for at least a decade, until it finally dawned that Heidegger's Nietzsche was not the true Nietzsche (see his "Nietzsche's Word"). Then I turned to Leo Strauss, especially his critique of Heidegger, and his championing of Plato, only to eventually realize that Strauss was a closet-Nietzschean (see his "Note on the Plan...") -- and no wonder if you learn the entire history surrounding his thought and work and life. I've now come to think of Nietzsche as our most important writer (see Jung's book on Nietzsche the prophet) on a scale comparable to Plato -- in fact, I'm not so sure now there is really all that much difference between Plato and Nietzsche with regard to the most important things, such as humanity's highest interest being philosophy. Twenty years ago this would have sounded ridiculous or insane to me. I find it interesting that you touch upon what I think really is Nietzsche's most important concern: "the future of our species." He knows quite well of the risks at hand but there is nothing else if we are to retain our honesty and integrity. No hand of god and not even a finger is controlling our destiny. The evolution of life on earth is the great truth of our time. Our future as far as we now can see lies with the future of the earth. We're not headed for the stars anytime soon. He speaks like no one else of the great dangers of the philosophy of the world today, namely SCIENCE, and reveals it's inner essence to be the destruction of the world -- BUT -- takes upon himself the task of transforming it into a gay or joyful science, one that takes care of the earth and keeps in mind always our own destiny (witness the recent great event of the mapping of our genome)! Through his Zarathustra we learn the way to redemption (2.20) after we have passed through resurrection (2.11). The entire language of theology is demythologized and then rebaptized anew in his thought. The prophecies at the end of Z.1 are one of my prime interests: the chosen people during the time of the event of the great noon of the earth and humanity. As he says, "Cheers for Physics!" with Psychology again the Queen of the Sciences. But I probably sound mad ... oh well, I'm old enough to be that way, and besides, know what Plato says about being mad?

Again, thanks for the very kind words. This is the only board (or website) that I've frequented beyond once or twice, and for the last couple of years I've mainly only read what others have said -- and I too love this board because of the posters that I've read.
David (only 2 hours till buffy 7.2!!!)

[> Re: Nietzsche, Power, and Buffy (Spoilers through 7.1) -- manwitch, 07:15:11 09/28/02 Sat

And of course Foucault, the Nietzschean.

I saw that whole hullabaloo at the end as being from Spike's perspective. Spike has been associated with Nietzsche from the first, both in his attitude and actions, the time of his vamping, and his deliberate contrast to the Kantian Angel.

Spike then had a panopticon-like chip implanted in his head. Foucault's Discipline and Punish was described by Foucault as a continuation of Nietzsche's Geneaology of Morals, and the book calls itself a Geneaology of the Modern Soul. According to Foucault, who claims to be following Nietzsche, arts of training, correction, discipline and individuation produce, through POWER, a soul, but it isn't a soul like Kant used to talk about that's all wonderful and virtuous and Godlike. Its a soul that narrows experience and possibility by constraining our own will to experience life. Spike had exaclty such a chip in his head and it functioned in him in exactly this way.

And, oddly enough, it produced a soul. And at the end of the episode we find Spike somewhat "ignobled" by this soul, not improved. Spike's Nietzschean task now, it seems to me, is to overcome this soul.

So I personally interpreted hallucination buffy to be talking about Foucauldian power rather than Will to Power. But who knows. Maybe she was talking about both.

[> [> Yes -- Jon, 11:40:11 09/28/02 Sat

Manwitch - I read your message about Foucault, the panopticon and Spike's soul back when you posted it and didn't have time then to tell you that I found the idea very compelling. In fact your idea has become central to my attempts to understand what Spike might be going through now. I've wondered if two of "the three of us" he refers to in Lessons are (1) the soul imposed on him by the chip (his "modern" soul) and (2) the soul that was granted to him by the cave demon (whose trials reflect those described in the long, gruesome opening of Discipline & Punish...okay, that's a stretch probably). In other words I've wondered if he has two "souls" in competition. Who was the third he referred to then? His vampire identity?

Anyway, I hope I'm not taking your theory in a direction you find grossly literal or something. I'm really glad you shared that idea, though. Thanks.

Jon

[> [> Re: Nietzsche, Power, and Buffy (Spoilers through 7.1) -- David Frisby, 22:26:27 09/28/02 Sat

Buffy (or the first) was talking about power pure and simple, and not about Nietzsche or Foucault, and even if Josh and co. have read either, they still mean for Buffy (or again, really the first) to be speaking about 'power' and not about the word or concept or anyone's version or understanding. Power is real (energy understood in terms of time; action understood in terms of the square of time; the moment of interia understood in terms of the cube of time; momentum understood in terms of acceleration). Power is that which is needed to triumph over gravity, and gravity is relentless, always pulling us down, until it almost always wins in the end, and we sag and fall. There are modes of power (necessary or not, actual or not, possible or not). Power provides the means to persist in time, a moment of inertia understood in terms of three dimensions of time. Life is not fundamentally about pleasure or happiness or virtue -- it's about power (and as Nietzsche says, power is always the will to power -- but will is another thing altogether). Next to the wisdom of the old Biblical God, the next most important aspects are God's will and God's power -- but (and this is Nietzsche's great insight), even if 'God' entails the will to power, must we insist that the 'will to power' entails God? In the buffyverse the powers that be seem to be the closest Josh and Co. come to 'God' -- but then it might also depend on what Nietzsche really means by amor fati.
Good night.
David

[> [> [> Re: Nietzsche, Power, and Buffy (Spoilers through 7.1) -- Simone, 16:16:24 09/29/02 Sun

>>Power is that which is needed to triumph over gravity, and gravity is relentless, always pulling us down, until it almost always wins in the end, and we sag and fall.<<

Hehe.

Zarathustra to the dwarf/spirit of gravity: Courage, however, is the best slayer - courage which attacks, which slays even death itself, for it says, "Was THAT life? Well then! Once more!"

Spike (in the swings with Giles): Giles is teaching me to be a Watcher.

Giles: A Watcher scoffs at gravity.

Vampirism as a metaphor for nihilism. The Vampire Slayer. A vampire as an integral part of the Vampire Slayer's group (the members of which all seem to represent aspects of her psyche: Mind, Spirit, Heart, Body... Vamp = Id? The subconscious in which all our most fundamental drives - death, nihilism, the killer, yes, but also sex, passion, the will to power - reside?). Everything being unbalanced while said vampire is a soulless vampire. Spike overcoming the vampire condition and choosing, in a sense, life (a soul as psuche, breath, that which makes us alive. And mortal - life and death being inextricably connected. If Spike's soul didn't come with a pulse, ME has missed the opportunity for a great metaphor, IMO. Granted, Angel's soul didn't, but that's because it was a curse, unwanted. Which is why the balance was always so precarious with him as the requisite vamp). Once More, With Feeling. Back to the Beginning - not the Bang, not the Word... It's not about right or wrong, it's about Power...

If Mr. Whedon hasn't read Nietzsche (a LOT), I'll set my arm on fire. God, I love this show.

[> [> [> [> Re: Nietzsche, Power, and Buffy (Spoilers through 7.1) -- David Frisby, 17:43:44 09/29/02 Sun

Zarathustra's courage says to the Spirit of Gravity (or the "Master of the World") "Dwarf! You! Or I!" and then after explaining courage as the human adventure says "I! Or You!" signifying a reversal wherein Zarathustra becomes the new master of the world. The song "Once More" about the deep night wisdom of the midnight is sung during his ascent to that mastery. Zarathustra "mocks" (or super-scoffs) gravity with his dance song in honor of love. Yes, nihilism as the twilight wisdom of vampirism (or the teaching of the old soothsayer), that which desires to never have been born, or at least to die soon. Nihilistic vampires believe the world that is ought not to be and the world that ought to be will never be. All values are transitory and subjective as is time itself, the past having no existence and the future portending nothing but more of the same. (I wonder if others have already pursued this conceptual comparison of nihilism and vampirism -- I'm on loose ground here.) Back to your reply though, Zarathustra teaches his soul to sing at the high time of the drama, but only after he's resurrected his ownmost own (his soul?). The overall psyche of the slayer as a kind of uber-slayer? Interesting thought! Zarathustra turns his deepest unconsciousness (including hate, anger, and especially envy) inside out and wakes it up to eternity! "The Beginning" -- in Greek, the 'arche' -- better translated as both the origin and the order simultaneously -- and the origin of Josh and Co.'s Buffy is "about power"? The weak dumb blonde as neither? (I'm thinking out loud here.) For Nietzsche, beginnings and endings are always a matter of perspectivity (looked at from below or above, from within or without, etc), and we are "really" always somewhere in the middle (ideally, in the center). Nice response! I'd love to know what philosophy Josh and Co. have been exposed to (and in what manner) -- because there's also "plenty" of Plato throughout! Buffy is more than just a "show" -- its a great event!
David

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Nietzsche, Power, and Buffy (Spoilers through 7.1) -- Simone, 22:54:14 09/29/02 Sun

>>"The Beginning" -- in Greek, the 'arche' -- better translated as both the origin and the order simultaneously -- and the origin of Josh and Co.'s Buffy is "about power"?<<

Exactly - the "will to power" as the arche, the beginning, the fundamental principle which drives the Bang, the Word, life, making the world an eternal - or, rather, eternally recurring - Becoming. All this echoing of Nietzsche in the language can't be mere coincidence, no? I can't wait to see where they're going with it.

As for the idealist, Platonic element on the show, personally I've always seen it as something that the characters must ultimately overcome (and this would seem to be the season for it), although I suspect that the text will always remain somewhat ambiguous philosphically. After all, Buffy's inability to accept this our hopelessly flawed and confusing world as real, longing instead for the perfect peace, goodness, moral clarity and completeness of "heaven," led her to nihilism just as surely as Spike's existential rebellion did him (a necessary phase for both of them, perhaps? Just like Zarathustra's nausea, or Roquentin's - same diff, really). Which is all kinds of paradoxical and Nietzschean. So I don't really see JW as a big fan of the cave allegory. Of course, this could just be my own philosophical biases talking. ;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nietzsche, Power, and Buffy (Spoilers through 7.1) -- David Frisby, 05:34:14 09/30/02 Mon

Yes! And the cave allegory is all Matrix of course, but usually applicable to any enlightenment talk (inside the cave, outside, and then the return). To become her full self, uber-buffy, may perhaps require her leaving the cave, but like Zarathustra, she won't remain on the top of the mountain, but will return to humanity out of philanthropy (or love). (I wonder how we might apply the allegory to Spike?) The hint Josh gives in Fray, that early in the 21st century come great event caused there to have never been any magic or demons or vampires ever, might be formulated as the final end of the Platonic ideal (the supersensuous realm, leaving only the sensuous). On will to power as the being or arche of becoming, it pays to remember what Zarathustra said (3.12): and then winter comes and there is only being (everything cold and still and unmoving), and never was any becoming (what we thought was becoming was illusion), but lo and behold spring breaks and summer arrives and there is only becoming, and all thought of 'being' is in error -- and so forth. Meaning, of course there's magick but only during the time of magick and not during other times (or something like that). But I'm getting too far afield. Will to power (at its least, the instinct for freedom) and eternal return -- got to go -- later.
David

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Puppet Show -- Rahael, 06:58:09 09/30/02 Mon

I'd be interested in any comments you might have to make in the Puppet Show thread, below, since there are some interesting things to observe about power in this very early ep.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Puppet Show (Response to your request) -- David Frisby, 15:29:31 09/30/02 Mon

Rahael
I looked at the Puppet Show thread and found the Oedipus theme interesting, but "the system" won't let me make any replies to anything. I assume it is because it has been archived (#1) and replies are then no longer permitted? Maybe you could begin a new thread touching on buffy and Oedipus (and maybe summing up the Puppet Show thread to some degree) and I could reply to that?

Breifly, Oedipus represents the search for truth at all costs, and this becomes dangerous and even deadly, especially when the truth one discovers is that the good has priority over the true (but that's a long story).

David

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Puppet Show (Response to your request) -- Rahael, 15:37:02 09/30/02 Mon

Yes, it got archived too fast! But right here would be a good a place as any!

I think if you were to label your post as a addendum to the archived thread, it would be all for the good, as it might prompt others to look at what you were referring to and give Rob new annotations for his site.

I suck at starting threads.

(I was referring not only to the posts re Oedipus but the themes of power and authority, and the demon who wills itself to wholeness, life and flesh)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: (Responding to your request) Puppet Show Post -- David Frisby, 18:08:39 09/30/02 Mon

Okay. A short one with some thoughts off the top of my head, although after reading the previous postings I think the main insights were already pointed out. Using the Oedipal model, Giles as father, Buffy mother (and wife), Xander as Oedipus, and Willow as the priestess of Zeus, telling the story. Oedipus pursues truth at any costs and learns the horror of darkness and faces madness. The theme of life as a show, characters as agents of more powerful forces, living according to their script, and the transgressions of season six. Buffy's fear that she's a puppet and her therefore hate of them. The theme of one's true vocation with natural talents as opposed to the show reminds me of Buffy's "Don't give me a song, give me something to sing about" (OMWF). Learning to love oneself as the basis of dignity (this is pure Nietzsche -- believe me -- compare Z.3.11). Murder (compare "Is there not in all life, killing and stealing" Z.3.12.12 or thereabouts) has always only an inch away from even the most decent person. The search for wholeness, integrity, and the unification of the soul (the original unity before divided into three parts -- see Plato's _Republic_). And overall, fate and destiny: fate as what is given, what we are born to, the past, and destiny as our destination, what we choose to do, the future, and the mix of the two as our fortune. In Plato's _Laws_ we are all said to be puppets of the gods so to speak (slaves), and it is only knowledge that brings liberation (truth sets free). Is Buffy a puppet? of the powers that be? of the watcher's council? or is she more than she has ever dreamed? an uber or super buffy beyond the uberbuffy of 4.21??? In Nietzsche's vision the great noon of the earth and humanity is likened to a final day of judgment where all will be revealed! Season seven of Buffy the Vampire Slayer needs to model itself after Nietzsche's great noon -- the end of all magic and the beginning of the world we know today. Nietzsche's superman at the moment of the great noon "as" buffy at the end of the series! Now there's a proper end to this greatest of all television dramas.

As regards Oedipus, consider Orestes as its hidden presupposition (ie matricide as deeper than patricide). And when Athena speaks at the end of the trial, the entire cosmos turns (I had no mother, only a father) and the new order begins.

Sorry Rahael! I've just rambled. I fear I'm no where near as good at commentary on the individual episodes as many I've read at this website (or elsewhere). The Puppet Show episode was indeed good, especially given the talent show context, but I think its beyond my talents to enucleate and explicate.

I want to get back to Buffy's "It's about power!" (Notice that that shot is the new end of the opening sequence?)

bye,

David

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very interesting ramble, thank you!! -- Rahael, 16:21:00 10/01/02 Tue

[> Nietzsche vs. Goodness -- Slain, 10:49:29 09/28/02 Sat

Great post, Mr Frisby!

There's always a question in BtVS - are good and evil real absolutes, or are they constructs? I think, ultimately, the conclusion is that, insofar as humanity is concerned, Good and Evil are real; but they aren't easily defined, or easily separated.

Some characters (often those defined as evil) favour a Nietzschian view; they insist that there is no good and evil. Spike always favours this. Unlike many vampires, he doesn't view humans as the enemy, or as the Bad to his personal Good. Rather he believes that whoever has the power can decide morality. The Master on the other hand, while rejecting human morality, lived by his own code, in which humans were a curse on the planet; he viewed humanity in the same light as humans viewed vampirism.

Buffy is the embodiment the Good vs. Evil morality of the show; not because she harbours the same crude polarized view as Giles formerly did, for example, but because she doesn't. She believes in a more complex morality. However, despite the shades of grey, she ultimately does believe in good and evil, and believes that she's on the side of good. Whatever it is, there is some universal ideal of good. Protect the innocent, and serve the public trust; whatever.

Season 6 marked a conflict between the black and white morality and Spike's Will to Power, embodied in Buffy. At the end, she didn't abandon her ideals of good and evil; but she did learn the importance of power, or of asserting her own morality. In OMWF she sung about her lack of drive in fighting; that she was no longer sure of her right to exercise her Slayer powers. 'Lessons' marked a new, self assurance in the riteousness of her own power.

[> [> Great post Jon AND Mr Frisby I should have said... got confused about who started the thread! -- Slain, 13:00:24 09/28/02 Sat

[> [> [> Re: Great post Jon AND Mr Frisby I should have said... got confused about who started the thread! -- David Frisby, 18:20:26 09/30/02 Mon

Repeating myself, but for Nietzsche there is no greater power on earth than good and evil (Z.1.15). The history of morality is very close to the history of humanity. Nietzsche divides that history into three parts: there's the past 10,000 years which he calls the moral epoch (characterized by understanding an action according to its origin or intention); there's the time before that which he calls the pre-moral period where actions are understood according to their consequence; and beginning somewhere in the 21st century (after about a 200 year transition) there will be the trans-moral period, which will begin as an amoral period (transitionary) in which actions are understood according to unconscious instincts or drives (this has never been made super-clear to me, but I have some idea of what he might mean). The 'moral' itself is always the upper limit with the 'political' the lower limit, and the 'legal' inbetween. The developing language comes to a focus today on values instead of good and evil, but they come to the same thing with regard to the priority of values over facts, or the traditional good over the true. Values themselves are actually transvaluations of ideas, which were transvaluations of the virtues, which were transvaluations of the gods (Plato replaced the Homeric gods with the Platonic ideas), which were transvaluations of practices. In Nietzsche's thought morality is drawn into a black hole of sorts but somehow emerges as a new world again ruled by morality. Buffy draws power from her passions. Her passions are fueled by her morality. Her morality continues to develop but is grounded in her own time, her own identity, and her friends.

???

David

[> [> Great thread -- Rahael, 05:24:38 09/29/02 Sun

[> [> [> Re: Great thread -- David Frisby, 18:32:42 09/30/02 Mon

Buffy is the woman of power. Paris chose the woman of beauty (Aphrodite) over the woman of wisdom (Athena) and the woman of power (Hera). Hera-cles, the prince of power, has direct ties to Hera. Zeus thinks he's finally solved the eternal problem that his father and grandfather failed at. Whereas Uranus repressed the feminine and refused to let Gaea give birth (until his son Cronus waged war and indirectly generated aphrodite or sexual reproduction), and whereas Cronus in turn incorporated the feminine (eating his children when Rhea gave birth to them, until his son Zeus waged war and imprisoned him in erebus, the darkness pit of cerebus), Zeus figures out the solution and swallows his wife Metis (= wisdom) and gives birth to Athena (new wisdom) himself out of his forehead -- ie, he appropriates the power of the feminine for himself, as does Plato's philosopher. Hera is the figure of feminine power, the complementary figure to Zeus, and Heracles is the hero of all heroes around whom the cosmos turns. Buffy is a contemporary but feminine Heracles -- destined to eventually join the banquet of the gods and feast upon the vision of being.

Buffy has the power, the fire, the destiny. Today's world will turn on what is made of the eternal daughter in the Jungian archetype of the family. Giles, through the powers that be is the father, and Willow, through her connection to the earth is the mother, and Xander through his love is the brother. Buffy is the archetypical daughter whose time has come. Power resides today with the young woman. Buffy is Xena and Sheena and Supergirl and much else.

And Josh and Co. do a damn good job with their writing, and Sarah Michelle Geller (Prince?) does a super fine job with the Dionysian drama -- true thaumaturgy!

David

[> [> Re: Nietzsche vs. Goodness -- shadowkat, 10:09:03 09/30/02 Mon

"There's always a question in BtVS - are good and evil real absolutes, or are they constructs? I think, ultimately, the conclusion is that, insofar as humanity is concerned, Good and Evil are real; but they aren't easily defined, or easily separated."

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend about Buffy this weekend. My friend who is very new to Buffy, said "it was interesting in this show I'm watching, that Buffy has to kill vampires and demons, yet as the seasons go on we start to realize that not all the demons are evil.
There's this floppy eared one named Clem who appears relatively harmless, and of course Spike in Season 5 and 6, even in 4, he's no true danger and Buffy doesn't really try that hard to kill him, and we have the demons at the wedding in Hell's Bells." She said "it's almost as if the show has acknowledged something we all need to realize that it isn't so simple - that good and evil aren't so easy to separate or define." She contrasted this with President Bush and Iraq, stating that "President Bush had made the Iraq situation very black and white - they are evil, we are good. You are either with me or against me. Partly b/c Saddam had tried to kill his father and he understandably hated Saddam for that. But it wasn't that simple. The world doesn't break down in nice little boxes of black and white."

Which reminds me of the Sondheim musical Into The Woods.
In that musical based on fairy tales - we are shown that the villians aren't necessarily the villians or vice versa.
In the musical - a boy accidently kills a giant to steal his gold, and the giant's wife comes down to wreck havoc on the boy's village. The characters struggle to decide whether the Giant was evil, the boy right, to sacrifice the boy to the Giantess, or to fight the Giant. While trying to make these decisions they struggle with their own views of right and wrong. And there's this wonderful song that symbolizes it - it discusses how no matter whose side your on, someone is on the other side, just as angry and feeling just as righteous as you do. From their perspective you're evil.

But is it so much about sides? Not according to Nietzche
( and my reading of him is not recent, so I could be wrong about this). Perhaps it has more to do with the actual acts? (Didn't someone on this board once state that there aren't evil people, just evil acts?) In Buffy, Buffy chooses who to kill on a basis of how much harm they can cause, she patrolls Sunnydale like a sheriff, only killing demons when they prove to be harmful to society. She kills the vampires - in the way one might kill off a plague, taking out the infected parties who threaten to create more infected parties. Spike doesn't get killed b/c with the chip he is effectively neutered and can't infect more humans with vampirism. (ie. can't harm humans by biting them with his fangs.) Other demons tend to be bit harder to identify - so she goes by how much harm they are causing and their intent. In The I in Team - she asks Prof Walsh why they are going after the Polgar - what is the Polgar demons' motivation.

Part of this is just praticality - she's just one woman, she can't kill everything in sight, but I think a large amount of it is a type of morality. As Anya puts it in Family - there are levels of evil, some demons are very evil, while others can be useful members of society. And Buffy states to Riley in New Moon Rising - there are graduations of evil - not all demons should be killed, accusing Riley of being a bigot for thinking so.

So how does this relate to our own world? Our own society?
The United States is considered a superpower - does the US have an obligation to act like Buffy, a Policeman with responsibility? Isn't that risky? Nicholaus the Policeman in the Crimean War did that and look what happened. (Do we have the right to enforce our will on how our neighbors choose to live their lives? Do we have the right if they pose a threat, no matter how in direct?) In Nicholaus' time, many people died due to his "police" actions. Was he justified? (I don't know, not real familar with that time period.)

Is good and evil based on the choices we make when we exercise our power? If we were to join en mass and take out the school bully - possibly beat him too death in return for the numerous times he beat us up - would that be a fair exercise of our power? Was Willow exercising her power in a good way when she went after Warren? Was Buffy exercising her's when she went after Faith in Graduation
Day? Was Angel exercising his when he tried to kill Wesely or went after Wolfram and Hart?

I don't know the answers. Just thought I'd add some thoughts to the discussion.

SK

[> [> [> Re: Nietzsche vs. Goodness -- David Frisby, 18:45:47 09/30/02 Mon

?? Think! Decide! Believe! Act!

Zarathustra says before one denigrates those who 'believe' they should first be one capable of belief. Nietzsche says sometimes a dash of stupidity is necessary to bring a halt to the thinking so as to think no more but to decide. Actions have origins and consequences but motives underlie and direct them and there's always an ideal somewhere up above the act like the wind that drives the sail.

Morality at bottom is a tension between the good and one's own, the good dictating what is fitting, and one's own negotiating what is due, and altogether, that is our lot. And overall, this is the question of justice (which Nietzsche, and of course Plato too, have plenty to say about: Nietzsche saying the teachings of justice so far having actually been preachings of madness (Z.2.20), and Plato saying justice is metaphysical, stretching down into the cosmos as a word for Moira, and around us as the political structure we must find a way to live within, and even within as the psychological health of the soul. For Plato, ultimately, only philosophy brings one to be just. For Nietzsche, ultimately, it's a matter of amor fati (but that involves eternal return, and much else).

These of course are "not" the answers, only further thoughts to be exchanged in the discussion. But after about 30 years thinking about them, they are what I've come to believe. Thanks for sharing.

David

Number Seventeen? -- ZachsMind, 13:46:38 09/28/02 Sat

I've read elsewhere some speculation about why the BB called Spike "number 17" and not "hostile 17" during that last scene in "Lessons." What I'm wondering is why would Adam refer to Spike as 17 at all? I can't find a reference in previous transcripts that indicates Adam ever called Spike 17 anything. It's not in his character to do so. In the season four episode "New Moon Rising," Adam referred to Spike by name:

ADAM: Spike, I want you to come with me.
SPIKE: Do you? (Shrugs) Well, let's go then. (punches Adam) Ow.

One could argue that, in "Lessons," the creature posing as Adam (and all these other baddies) was purposefully not referring to Spike by name because it was browbeating him. It was demeaning and belittling Spike and tearing down his self-esteem, but let's face it. The guy just got a human soul. Like he needs help feeling crummy right now. This shapeshifter didn't refer to Spike as hostile because Spike's admittedly not very hostile right now. Why did it refer to him as seventeen?

[> Oh poop. Very minor Lessons spoiler warning for above just in case -- ZachsMind, 13:50:13 09/28/02 Sat

[> Re: Number Seventeen? (Buffy 7.1 Spoiler) -- Rob, 14:45:02 09/28/02 Sat

By calling Spike "Number 17" instead of his name, he reduced him. He attempted to take away his identity, his individuality, and his humanity, now that he has a soul. There have been many cases of similar happenings--concentration camp victims, prisoners of war, people on chain gangs, people kidnapped by cults for example--where their captors call them not by their names but by the numbers they have given them. This puts the control in the hand of the captor. The Big Bad here is reasserting his power over Spike, and trying to make sure that Spike does not question that he is inferior to him. Calling Spike "Number 17" demeans him and, further, asserts ultimate power over him by renaming him. He's saying: You are not a person, you are not your own identity...You are only a number.

Rob

[> [> Re: Number Seventeen? (Buffy 7.1 Spoiler) -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:30:33 09/28/02 Sat

Plus, it seems pretty obvious that the shapeshifter (not yet convinced it's the Big Bad) isn't the greatest actor in the world. Take a look at Warren: all right, I admit now that the guy had misogynistic tendencies, but it was never as blatant as it was then. Then there's Adam paraphrasing the line about "exactly where I want her" that he told to Spike in Yoko Factor/Primevil. The Mayor's comment about souls seemed to be blatant ripoff of his remarks to the Deputy Mayor in Lovers' Walk. The only Big Bad manifestations that didn't seem like parodies (Glory, Drusilla, and the Master) can kind of be explained by the fact that all three were pretty over the top to begin with. And then there's the manifestation of Buffy. The shapeshifter actually stole a line from Buffy and imitated her tone, clothing, and demeanor from the episode checkpoint. This could explain why Adam called Spike number 17: whatever is impersonating him can't stay completely in character. Actually, did anyone else notice that the different manifestations of the Big Bads seemed a lot like fanfiction versions? Or is it just me?

[> [> [> Re: Number Seventeen? (Buffy 7.1 Spoiler) -- leslie, 17:45:38 09/28/02 Sat

"Actually, did anyone else notice that the different manifestations of the Big Bads seemed a lot like fanfiction versions? Or is it just me?"

Ah, now all becomes clear. WE are the Big Bad!!! Spike's fate is in our hands!

[> [> [> [> Well Gosh, I hope Not -- Alan Smithee, 17:50:48 09/29/02 Sun

Considering most online fans' view of Spike if it was up to us, we would have to rename the series, Spike the Slayer Layer perhaps?

[> [> [> Re: Number Seventeen? (Buffy 7.1 Spoiler) -- Juliet, 21:19:45 09/28/02 Sat

Well, I do think that's pretty much on the spot, but also...Buffy's getting new viewers all the time, and some people might not be familiar with the big bad's character as much. They seemed like they were going for a two-liner that summed up the character's view on this whole thing (one that stuck out at me was Glory's "there's not even a human word...") in order to get the point across.

[> [> The Prisoner -- Corwin of Amber, 19:43:35 09/28/02 Sat

"I am not a number! I am a free man!"
- Number 6

[> 17 -- Anything noteworthy about that number? -- Rachel (not Rahael), 18:59:25 09/28/02 Sat

Forgive me if this strays too far from your original question, or has been discussed already. Here's a thought on the actual number "17." Seventeen is the seventh prime number (after 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13...excluding 1 due to its obvious nature). If the Scoobies could be classifieds as numbers, I would most certainly call them Prime. They are anomoly-type citizens of Sunnydale. Say that Giles, Buffy, Angel, Willow, Xander, and Cordelia are the original Scoobies. In light of Spike's involvement with the gang, he might be called the Seventh Scooby. In mythical/biblical reference, 7 is a signifies perfection. So, here we have the 7th Prime Scooby in search of the perfect and souled existence.

Hmmm -- maybe a bit far-fetched?? Okay, enough math ramblings for one evening!

[> [> Re: 17 -- Anything noteworthy about that number? -- sharpetoo, 07:58:08 09/29/02 Sun

More math ramblings. Drop Buffy because she is number 1 and add Oz. Now it works better.

[> [> Re: 17 -- Anything noteworthy about that number? -- ponygirl, 09:08:00 09/29/02 Sun

Further number ramblings, 17 in the Tarot is the Star card which symbolizes regeneration, transformation, and insight. It's also associated with female power and the Cups suit.

Also, I think that it was mentioned on the board a few months back but there were only 17 episodes of The Prisoner.

Not sure if any of this means anything but it was interesting that they referenced Spike's number after all this time. I think the last time it was used was in Fool for Love.

[> [> Well, I like to think there is, but I could be biased. -- Dead (but born on the 17th) Soul, 00:07:47 09/30/02 Mon

OK!! One of the best BtVS analysts around is back again! And... -- OnM, 15:29:39 09/28/02 Sat

... the only one that I know of to actually get a demon named after him! Kewl!

;-)

jenoff's review of Ep. 7.1 is up. Link here:

http://www3.sympatico.ca/jenoff/btvs701.htm

Go for it, folks!

[> Oooh, ooh! Been waiting around to see what jenoff had to say! -- Deeva, 17:17:54 09/28/02 Sat

Not to say that what you had written wasn't awesome also, OnM.

[> [> OT/ Say, Deeva have you seen Firefly? -- CW, 17:36:05 09/28/02 Sat

I was wondering if you could tell if the 'unknown' language they keep babbling when they want to be secretive is possibly Mandarin or Cantonese.

[> [> [> A not-very-educated guess ;o) -- dub, 17:57:27 09/28/02 Sat

It seemed to me that they used the "unknown" language in situations of commerce (ordering in the bar) or stress (as in "expletive deleted").

In the Vancouver community the language of street commerce is Cantonese.

My ear is not good enough to tell if that was what they were speaking though, and then there's the added difficulty of non-native speakers attempting to replicate an inflected language...oy!

In sum, I hope Deeva sees this and can help us!

;o) dub

[> [> [> [> Umm...a confession -- Deeva, 22:50:15 09/28/02 Sat

OK, so, like, uh I have to say this...I actually haven't seen anything more than 5 minutes of the last two shows because I keep forgetting that its actually on. If I had seen either ep. (and it sounds like they use this language of commerce often?) I probably would be able to tell y'all whether it is Mandarin or Cantonese, though I have a sneaking suspicion that it might be Mandarin. Mostly because it's the easier of the 2 for English speakers to learn. I'm not saying that Mandarin is easy as pie to learn, just easier on the Western tongue. Cantonese is a twisty little thing. A friend, who speaks both, once heard someone describe the differences between the two like this: "Mandarin is like water boiling over, Cantonese is like the flatware tray being thrown on the floor." Gotta tell you it made me laugh! Of course, it's all in the way you use it.

Well, now I have to absolutely remeber to watch this Friday to see which it is. Watch, now that I've said that it'll be an ep. that doesn't have any of the characters do any commerce.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I think it might be preempted for baseball playoffs for a few weeks -- JBone, 09:27:07 09/29/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> My schedule says this coming Friday is an off evening for the playoffs on TV -- CW, 09:53:33 09/29/02 Sun

I'm hoping Fox will advertise Firefly like mad during the playoffs. I was flipping between football and baseball yesterday and didn't see any ads for it.

[> A few comments and a link inside.........:):) -- Rufus, 18:01:36 09/28/02 Sat

Consequences. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Whedon takes the laws of the physical universe and applies them to the spiritual realm. Do bad things and you have to pay. Do good things and good things happen. I think we're going to see the consequences of 6 years of good and evil actions play out this season.

Possibly the key moment in the episode was Giles telling Willow that in the end everyone is who they are despite how they seem to have changed. So Willow, even dark, was still Willow. Buffy, despite the enormous powers of the slayer, is still Buffy. And Spike is still William - at least that's the point I take from the lesson. I suspect through this season we'll see how the various characters grow, evolve, and stay the same. The good and the bad that was always in them and the way they respond to that good and bad will determine their fate.

Jenoff and I agree on the characters specifically the vampires.....what they once were informs all that they become....William has always been William regardless of how many aliases they give themselves. Buffy beat the crap out of Spike last year and she was clearly horrifed at what she had done...even to a demon..that made her revert back to what she had always been....Buffy. No matter how seductive the darkness Spike offered her seemed, she is a creature of light and had to be Buffy.

With Willow she had always tried to escape a fundemental truth about herself...she is a geek. Instead of finding value in who she was, she ran from it tried to hide from it...but in the end she is always Willow.

Spike....he will always be the poet in that drawing room so many decades ago, changing the facade did little to change that fact. All his actions and boasting as a vampire doesn't change who he was, and the introduction of a soul will hopefully allow the good man who once was to do something the atone for his years wasted as a demon.

As to the fates of all the characters....what they do will be what they ultimately become. Willow can atone, so can Spike. Both characters have walked in darkness and have the power to do something to let in the light. Willow has to face her friends, Spike has to face William, and chose his path and take the responsibility for the path he eventually finds. Anya is in the same boat...she is a failure as a demon and she has the power to do something about that..be it becoming a true monster again, or learning something from what happened in Two to Go and Grave that vengeance is a emotion without an end.

The despair which surrounds Spike and seems to be the greatest power of the evil force (if this the First Evil from Amends (A Buffy Christmas) it is following a clear pattern - present itself in the guise of known images and breed despair) is emphasized by the mayor and Dru. They tell him that his decision to get a soul was doomed from the start. That he is doomed to spend his time in darkness. That he cannot escape the evil and that he in fact wants it.

Spike is going through what Angel did so long ago, refinding a place when he doesn't fully belong in darkness or light. I wonder if the "good man" he said he was in FFL can overcome all the atrocities he did as a monster...or will the despair win and he either ends his existance or if he has enough inner strength to reject what the apparition said about belonging in the darkness.

Xander certainly looks like he has matured a great deal in the off season. He is far more successful at work and he's effective in helping Buffy. This is a very different Xander from the one we saw in The Zeppo (oddly an episode from the same season the First Evil made its appearance). The master says the course of the coming months will reveal what everyone is. That's particularly true of Anya and Xander. Is she a vengeance demon or a human? Is he someone who can be counted upon and can form a strong relationship or is he doomed to be like his parents.

Now, to Xander...he is the one most comfortable in the real world and has the trappings to prove that fact. Has he truly matured or is he hiding behind the outward proof of prosperity. He looks like the basement of his parents are past, but is that an illusion, or has Xander really finally rejected his past despair to make his own future?

I liked ep. one for the same reasons that Jenoff does....it showed so much potential for things to come. To look at the summary and review go either to the Trollop board or to Jenoff.

[> [> Agree with Rufus and Jenoff -- shadowkat, 09:51:04 09/29/02 Sun

For what it's worth I agree with your take and Jenoff's.
Jenoff got a couple of the dialogue lines wrong but nothing major.

I think your right - and I think in an odd way the dreams in Restless were trying to tell us and the characters the same thing. The difficulty is accepting yourself.
And I think that's going to be the hardest challenge.

I do disagree on one thing. (Or maybe I don't, possible I misread you here?) I don't think Buffy has accepted who she is just yet. She still doesn't know what to make of the darkness inside her. She's not just a creature of light, she is also one of darkness. People aren't one or the other - we're both, and that is the thing Buffy needs to come to grips with. In Lessons - I got the feeling that she was beginning to when she told her sister that the vampire had the power. But she is the slayer - she also has it.

I think part of this year will focus on Buffy's acceptance of the darkness in herself and taking control over that instead of letting it either rule her (as it did Faith and Willow) or frighten her (as it does Xander). Her realization that the darkness adds to the light, it doesn't need to swallow it. It's not an either/or scenerio, it's not black and white.

Dawn also has to come to grips with who she is - her keyness is going to play part here, I think. As I think Dawn may be the one who teaches the other charcters how to come to grips with who and what they are. We often learn the most about ourselves through the next generation.

So it's not just Willow, Spike, Xander or Anya who are vulnerable and on the brink. Buffy is too. Perhaps more so, than we may think. At least that was part of my reaction to seeing her manifested in the final scene.

[> [> [> Re: Agree with Rufus and Jenoff -- Rufus, 21:09:41 09/29/02 Sun

I do disagree on one thing. (Or maybe I don't, possible I misread you here?) I don't think Buffy has accepted who she is just yet. She still doesn't know what to make of the darkness inside her. She's not just a creature of light, she is also one of darkness. People aren't one or the other - we're both, and that is the thing Buffy needs to come to grips with. In Lessons - I got the feeling that she was beginning to when she told her sister that the vampire had the power. But she is the slayer - she also has it.

You are right the Slayer is someone who has power based upon darkness who is harnessed for the forces of light. I think of what Glory said in Blood Ties when I think of both Dawn and Buffy.

Cut to exam room. Dawn is now leaning against a wall while Glory sits on the exam table.

DAWN: So this ... key thing ... it's been around for a long time?

GLORY: Well, not as long as me, but ... yeah. Just this side of forever.

DAWN: (long pause, very quietly) Is it evil?

GLORY: Totally!

Dawn gives a little gasp of dismay.

GLORY: (laughs) Well, no, not really. I guess it depends on your point of view.

DAWN: What's it for? I mean ... if it's a key, there's gotta be a lock, right?

GLORY: Yes. We have a winner.

DAWN: S-so what does it open?

I can understand why Buffy has had such a fear of her darkness because she has a boatload of power that could have devastating consequences if misused. Dawn, like Buffy was afraid of being "evil", but what we see is that no matter what fears chase Buffy or Dawn they seem to be only able to be who they are, and that is a combined force for light.....most likely for Dawn because she is made of Buffy...well, and Buffy is now (after The Gift) a bit more like Dawn. Growing up is a process and I think it continues on for as long as we live. We may think that we only grow up once, but I think of life as a process where we constantly have to opportunity to grow in how we think and act.

[> [> Labels and Willow the geek and identity -- Rahael, 08:40:12 09/30/02 Mon

Minor disagreement in wording here, Rufus:

"With Willow she had always tried to escape a fundemental truth about herself...she is a geek. Instead of finding value in who she was, she ran from it tried to hide from it...but in the end she is always Willow."

I don't think there are such fundamental truths, not about such labels anyway. In fact, this is the very fallacy that Willow falls into. Instead of thinking of herself simply as just Willow, full of all kinds of possibilities, she labels herself. Geeky Willow. Cool 'my boyfriend's in the band' Willow. Good 'old reliable' Willow. 'Dark Willow'. She never accepts the possibility that all of these things are true. That she contains all these possibilities but is not limited to any of them. In fact she finds this so hard to accept that if she's one, she can't be any other kind of Willow. If she's good, she can't possibly do anything naughty. If she's being all evil, there's no possibility of good in her.

It's not that she's running away from the label of Geek. She's the one who is imposing it upon herself. She's the one who torments herself by wearing costumes and geek clothes under cool clothes and never just being comfortable in her own skin.

I think this is what you're getting at when you talk of internalising dark and light. And it's not just Buffy and Spike and Anya who have walked the dark ways. We all do. The darkness of Xander's basement is just as much a part of who he is as Buffy's feeling of wrongness. In the end, there is really very little to separate Anya or Willow, Spike or Buffy, in the essential constitution. All that counts is the choices we make, and the life we construct for ourselves.

And accepting that through our veins course dark emotions as well as more 'acceptable' ones. And that they make up part of us. They are present in us, not only Vampires and Vengeance demons and geeks. The one thing about identity in the Buffyverse is it's fluidity. We know this when we see a face morph from human to demon to human to demon. Telling us that under our skin, we contain many faces. All of them 'true'.

[> [> [> Re: Labels and Willow the geek and identity -- Rufus, 15:26:02 09/30/02 Mon

This is of course a classic actor's nightmare and Willow already had a dream about being in a play in Season 1 so she is more open now to taking drama class but it sort of vaguely terrifies her and this comes out, and the idea of role playing..the point is that Willow is feeling like she is wearing a disguise, she isn't telling anyone the truth. The mislead is that what she's talking about is her sexuality. In fact she's talking about is that she still considers herself to be a big nerd.

Yes, I used the wrong word...Joss said nerd in the commentary for Restless.

I don't think there are such fundamental truths, not about such labels anyway. In fact, this is the very fallacy that Willow falls into. Instead of thinking of herself simply as just Willow, full of all kinds of possibilities, she labels herself. Geeky Willow. Cool 'my boyfriend's in the band' Willow. Good 'old reliable' Willow. 'Dark Willow'. She never accepts the possibility that all of these things are true. That she contains all these possibilities but is not limited to any of them. In fact she finds this so hard to accept that if she's one, she can't be any other kind of Willow. If she's good, she can't possibly do anything naughty. If she's being all evil, there's no possibility of good in her.

Willow has been running away from herself since the series started. I use the word the label she has feared to describe her. The thing is that Willow sees a "nerd" in a negative light...nerd meaning to Willow, loser. She didn't come to this conclusion herself, she was teased about being a nerd in highschool. Labels have meaning or they wouldn't be used, and in Willows case feared. Her problem is that she became the word the label and forgot to take a look at the posative qualities that make Willow such a compelling character in the first place. She fails to notice that out of many of her former peers, she has talents that rise above being popular in such a small world that is high school. What vampires do in morphing their face, Willow did by changing her costume but she as all of us are what we once were, but I hope she figures out that we aren't just what we were we are also what we become, and that Willow has control over.

[> [> [> [> Re: Labels and Willow the geek and identity -- Rahael, 15:42:21 09/30/02 Mon

Well, not so much the word 'geek' as the idea that we have such a thing as a stable self identity that remains with us from childhood through adolescence and to adulthood.

What I meant was, 'is' Willow 'anything'? Does she possess an innate geekiness that made her seek out computers and other nerd like pursuits? Does Cordelia posses an innate bitchiness, 'is' she a 'bitch'?

I'd say that we choose to act and present ourselves in certain ways in the situations we find ourselves in. Which is why I can call actions evil, but not need to identify an innate evilness within someone.

At the end of the day, we may let the self identity we construct for ourselves imprison us. But self identity is multi faceted and fluid. Which is why the theme of doppelgangers, dark halves, shadow selves etc in the Buffyverse is so prevalent and compelling.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Labels and Willow the geek and identity -- Rufus, 18:21:57 09/30/02 Mon

I agree, and the main problem is many people miss the fact that identity is fluid...does tranform, evolve over the years. What is true at one age or time can change as quickly as one action. Willow was stuck thinking herself as only a nerd, she is more than that one descriptive word and only she gave it meaning, and she is the only one that can change that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Great subthread! -- J, 10:32:52 10/01/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Labels and Willow the geek and identity -- Sara, 16:19:10 10/01/02 Tue

How fluid is identity? When we grow and mature, aren't we becoming just more ourselves, and when we get old and senile (...feeling closer ever day) don't we become too much ourselves? I don't think people really change, they develop in who they are, or they put on layers to mask who they are, but the basic you is still you. Maybe not, I know I feel like I'm pretty much the same self I was at five, but other people may feel like they've become an entirely new person, that's almost a whole different being than their old self. I shouldn't generalize based on my own internals. I will however speak for Willow, because I really do think she is the same Willow she was at five, and the geek label is a way of identifying a very basic aspect of herself that she isn't comfortable with, but is her. I don't think her character will ever be safe from power and control issues until she comes to terms with the outcast, different, not cool parts of herself, her geekiness to be more concise.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Metamorphosis -- Rahael, 16:39:10 10/01/02 Tue

Have to disagree here - perhaps this is me arguing from my own internals. Perhaps this is just a different world view.

But, how do we define the term 'outcast'? Is Willow, who is from a prosperous middle class home, with friends who love her, with great abilities, a sharp intelligence but at heart who feels different, strange, 'other' - is she an outcast? Or does she see herself as one and act accordingly? How much of this is self definition?

Is Willow someone who at heart wants to be 'other'? But who struggles with this tension, of wanting to be needed and liked, but also someone who is different, rebellious? The Willow who told her mother defiantly "See any goats around the house? No? That's because I sacrificed them!" and "Satan, come fill me with your dark, naughty evil!"

So, is saying she is at heart a 'geek' really tell us that much about her? I think Cordelia for example is someone else who simultaneously wants to belong, but is also 'other'. She wants to lead the vapid girls, but *knows* she is different. She's not a sheep! or so she tells her self. She's a bitch! She tells herself. Her continuous identification of herself as a bitch tells us more about how she wants to be identified, how she sees herself than how she really is.

But then, I'm not an essentialist. While our involuntary emotional reactions may well be based on events we cannot even remember, while our chosen identities may be based on unconscious desires and thoughts, I can't find anything significant about someone being a geek from the age of five. But then geek is a word that doesn't really belong in my cultural vocab. A meme that hasn't really travelled you might say!

But speaking in a totally Buffyverse point of view, the show is always about change. It's totally about characters not staying the same. In the Buffyverse self identity is fluid - like Spike, choosing to show himself as the 'big bad', with the dyed blond hair and punk sensibility - he wasn't a rebel from when he was young! That possibility lay hidden within him until it was released by Drusilla. Or the hardened Buffy of the wisheverse, or the damaged possiblity of Buffy shown to us by Faith. Buffy looked into Faith's eyes as she tried to stab her and knew that they were joined - it's significant that the stomach was stabbed, the knife almost become an umbilical cord between them.

Has Willow been 'gay now' from the start of the show? BtVS is all about mortality, time, change - and the metamorphosis that personal identity undergoes. It's a world where when you turn the corner, you may come across someone else with your face, or come face to face with a friend wearing the face of a demon, who may bite you and show you a whole new you. Who was within you, yes. But only one small part of you, only one possibility of you.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Outcasts, essential selves and change -- Sara, 18:58:32 10/01/02 Tue

Anyone, in any society can be an outcast. Willow defined as a geek does not tell us much about her, but her feelings in defining herself as a geek is tell us almost everything. Willow stopped being an outsider when she became part of the scoobies, but she never really stopped feeling like an outsider. There is a very particular aspect to the type of rejection she had experienced. It was completely personal - Cordelia and her friends don't dislike Willow because she is poorer or richer than they are, there aren't significant differences, they don't dislike her because she's not pretty enough or too pretty - there are plainer and prettier girls that have significant circles of friends. Willow is rejected because she is Willow. This doesn't mean the people rejecting her really know her, but the rejection is still on a completely personal level. And what drives Willow's need for control is that she doesn't really know why people didn't like her. Until she comes to term with that lack of control and lack of understanding, she will be stuck in the same place emotionally.

Yes, the show is about change, but I don't think the essentials of the characters have changed. In Buffy, the characters experience change and yet as Giles says, when all is said and done you are who you are. Even Spike turned into a vampire, soul lost, body invaded by a demon, is still in so many ways William. In "Fool for Love" when Buffy tells him that he isn't worthy of her, wasn't that William on the verge of tears kneeling on the ground littered with money? When he became Spike again a moment later, it appeared that he was just putting on his outside face, and I can't help but wonder how much of Spike is a mask versus how much is the demon?

I'm going to theorize that most of what we are is either an acceptance of our essential selves or a rejection of it, and at different parts of our lives we jump around accepting this, rejecting that, which causes the appearance of change. But that appearance is somewhat superficial, because underneath we are what we are. I don't know what makes up our essential selves, genetics, experience + brain chemistry, a soul? I had a boss who used to say "what is, is" and I can't help but feel that it's the most concise way to sum up the world.

- Sara, who's way better at accepting and rejecting other people's essential selves, then her own

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> well put! I agree -- meritaten, 00:22:10 10/02/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Essential Selves -- Rahael, 04:30:32 10/02/02 Wed

We could argue it this way and that way - that Willow got picked on because she was open and sincere and sensitive, not because she liked computers. That Cordelia sensed Willow's neediness and wanted to kick it in order to make herself feel better. There's definitely a power dynamic going on. It's all about the power. Cordelia has it, she uses it to hurt other people. Willow doesn't have it, and yearns for more. But what does it tell us about their essential selves, if such a thing exists other than in Sunnydale High Cordelia is queen, and in LA she isn't? Has her essential self somehow changed?

But, it comes down to fundamentally different world views - I just don't think that underneath me is a certain 'me' that I'm waiting to find. I don't know who 'me' is. 'Me' is defined in different ways and in different contexts. I am acutely aware of how much I change, and how so many of my certainties of 'who I am' slip away so quickly.

"I'm going to theorize that most of what we are is either an acceptance of our essential selves or a rejection of it, and at different parts of our lives we jump around accepting this, rejecting that, which causes the appearance of change"

I can't disagree more. In fact, I'd say that the uncertainty of who we are, the yearning for a stable 'me', the time we spend trying to 'find' ourselves - that concern - that's a really fundamental part of who I am - the uncertainty. That we can't be sure that we are good and kind and wise, and never be capable of more terrible things. That 'we' aren't like that. That unpredictability. The moment of choice available to us.

Spike may be William, maybe neutered Spike, may be a poet or a murderer - he is all those things. Angel is Angelus and Liam and Noir Angel and fluffy Angel - he is all these things. Buffy has so many identities - the Buffybot, Dawn, Coming back wrong Buffy, quippy Buffy. What's her essential self? A strong, ever moral, crusader, never fatiguing, never doubting? Isn't that certainty part of what actually crushed Buffy this season?

I'd say who we are is made up of our memories and our actions, and that's what we base our self identity around. We have certain predictable responses to situations, but ones that are common to so many other human beings. We find our uniqueness in something else, something we define within ourselve. This is why I think self identity is self formed.

Or maybe I just love 'Renaissance self-fashioning'. Great book by Stephen Greenblatt.

But, I'm about to go back to the woodwork where this debate is concerned since we aren't about to convince each other.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Metamorphosis -- meritaten, 00:16:01 10/02/02 Wed

"But speaking in a totally Buffyverse point of view, the show is always about change. It's totally about characters not staying the same. In the Buffyverse self identity is fluid ..."

I agree that the show is about change, but it is also about remaining the same. I think that identity is an innate quality. What did Giles say in 7.1, "In the end, we are all the same people we always were" (loose pharaphrase)? The identity remains the same, but people change in how they see and deal with that identity. The same person grows up.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spoilers for Buffy Ep1, Season 7 -- Rahael, 04:33:37 10/02/02 Wed

That's not how I would interpret his comments. He seems to be saying that we must accept ourselves, and the way we are. That does not seem to then say that there is an immutable quality. Sometimes change is part of that acceptance.

After all, hasn't Willow been told now that magic is a part of her? Isn't that a pretty big change to her essential self? Doesn;t that suggest that self identity changes?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Willow's self-identity -- Arethusa, 08:22:10 10/02/02 Wed

Willow is now MagicWillow, but she really hasn't changed inside. Since self-identity, by definition, is "sameness of thing with itself," (Mirriam Webster) we have to look at what hasn't changed. Willow is stil afraid of rejection, afraid to name her fears, although she's getting better; obviously Giles has been teaching her to confront them. Her memories, view of self and reactions to events have changed, but her personality hasn't-as far as I can tell in a few moments' screen time. Perhaps that's why epiphanies tend to be forgotten-the personality doesn't change, even when one's viewpoint changes. It's difficult to keep from lapsing into old behaviors, and takes a great deal of self-awareness to fight the parts of our personalities we don't like.

One difference in Willow's view of self is that she now realizes that ordinary Willow wasn't such a bad thing to be, considering the alternatives she came up with.

Perhaps the theme to this year is Who Am I Now?-the Scoobies all had their view of self changed when their glaring faults were exposed, and now they have to understand who they really are, without the masks and pretensions. And they are all being (or will be; this is ME) thoroughly punished by their actions-no one had to step in to punish them. Buffy is, painfully, forced to accept the harm she did Spike, because in his disintergration she finally sees him as a person who just wants desperately to be loved.

Agree? Disagree?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Mutability -- Rahael, 10:10:42 10/02/02 Wed

Well, I'm trying to keep self identity and personality distinct. But I guess we are all working with individual definitions here! I mean, I don't deny that individuals have certain predictable reactions. But I'm talking about "self" identity, a notion which I think that BtVS has consistently contested. Just look at all the multiple selves running around.

The only thing here is, yes, Willow still has all the old problems she used to have. (After all, I'm the one who argued that there's a very thin, permeable line between Angelus and Angel!) But I'd say that what she did to Warren - it's an important event - she crossed the rubicon. She may have some of the old issues, but they'll all have a different resonance now. Isn't that what the metaphor about magic is all about? That her actions have now been carved deep within her, that the text she took in is now part of her system?

Her self identity is going to have to be totally different. Will she seriously be able to think of herself as 'old reliable' anymore? Or 'sweet'? She'll now see all the darker parts of her that existed within. But the old Willow self identity is still true. As is the new ones. She's all of those things. (Containing multitudes!)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mutability -- Arethusa, 11:01:35 10/02/02 Wed

As always, not only do we all work with different definitions, we interpret those through our own identity, as well as our cultural perspective (and no, don't want to go there). :)

And I'll never argue with the wonder of "containing multitudes." (Although NewSpike might disagree!) One of the most interesting things about aging is learning that there is much more to each of us than we ever knew, both good and bad, and if we're lucky we're secure enough to accept the new discoveries.

[> Meanwhile, on the opposite end of the quality spectrum.... -- mundusmundi, 18:22:40 09/28/02 Sat

Jeff Jensen, EW's online, low-price-warehouse answer to Ken Tucker, is conspicuously absent. Anybody know the story? I'd hate to go without my weekly dose of irritation.;)

[> [> LOL...Don't know about Jensen the Irritator, but... -- Rob, 18:38:17 09/28/02 Sat

Ken Tucker gave Buffy's season premiere an A!

Rob

[> [> [> Where can I find his review? -- Robert, 21:33:34 09/28/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> It isn't on-line. It's in the Oct. 4 issue of EW. I get it early, since I have a subscription... -- Rob, 21:58:38 09/28/02 Sat

It's a combined review of "Firefly" and "Buffy." He gave "Firefly" a B+ and "Buffy" an A. I was planning on typing out the section on "Buffy," but to be honest, the "Buffy" section is little more than just a sum-up of the plot of the premiere. It is, though, a very positive sum-up, which should be obvious by the grade. I believe last year, he'd reduced it down to an A-, so now it's back on top.

What little opinion he did express about Buffy was these few quotes:

"...Whedon and Co. are setting up a sparky new season..."

And regarding the villain at the end of the episode:

"Plus, Whedon seems to have already answered the chief complaint many fans had about last season--that there was no single great supervillain, like the first season's grotesque Master...or the weaselly Mayor...or the witchy Glory. Whedon's clever notion is to combine all of them into one shape-shifting, super-duper villain..."

And that was as review-y as he got...Before that, was just a summary of the episode. So, it was definitely not required reading material, but it was nice to see "Buffy" getting great reviews again.

Rob